Dangers of Feminism

[Misty77]

Wasn't talking about the contention.

So you just felt compelled to a drive-by of condemnation? That doesn't seem constructive.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Good point and this extends to Rachel as well.

Anyone with a gram of Christian charity would private message the person and say something to the effect of, "Though this is an informal discussion in an Internet forum I believe your sloppiness has reached a point where it violates the cultural norm as I understand it."

My inbox is empty.

To describe her behavior in terms of ancient Greek mythology, she swooped down like a malevolent harpy screeching vile.

Hypocritically, there's a serious moral issue with sloppiness in an informal Internet discussion but there's absolutely no moral issue with swooping down like a malevolent harpy and screeching vile instead of simply private messing the person.

An obvious evidence of her actual intent.

LOL!

Pull the log Rachel out of your own eye. From where I'm sitting, you might want to contract a lumber company to lend a hand.

So you just felt compelled to a drive-by of condemnation? That doesn't seem constructive.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Well said. That's exactly my understanding.

Your accusations have been heard. I am an editor/proofreader, and I work in the legal field. I can say that there was no plagiarism or thievery: he just didn't cite his sources, nor is he required to in such an informal forum. You can either ask for citations or ignore evidence you don't think is well supported.

I do admire your passion and your dedication to truth. But when you get hung up on the peripherals, then we are unable to actually discussion the issues.

 

[presidente]

I have no respect for you.
This is such a shameful matter to even bring up in such a manner... I am disgusted. So much for tall claims of education!

I still remember you boasting about having two master's degrees but running away when posed with a question of statistics. I shouldn't be surprised that you've stooped to such stunts. But I am. I am deeply saddened.

You ought to repent for this.

I have to say, I want to put you on my ignore list, but I'll ignore that so that I can laugh whenever I see your obnoxious posts.

If we disagree with another poster or have a bit of a confrontation, we need to use some restraint with our words. Using this type of vitriol isn't very feminine. I'll agree with you that Age of Knowledge should have shown a little more humility when it was shown that he forgot to cite his sources in one of his posts, but your personal attack here crosses the line, IMO.

 

[presidente]

This is actually not the the definition of Kephale in Greek. While it is certainly the physical head of an object, animal or person, it is not the cornerstone, master or supreme. That is the word arche in Greek.
Strong's Number: 746
Original Word Word Origin
ἀρχή from (756)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Arche 1:479,81
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ar-khay' Noun Feminine
Definition

beginning, origin
the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
the extremity of a thing
of the corners of a sail
the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
of angels and demons

Regular folks like us may look at Strong's definitions. But expert Greek scholars look at actual usage of words in Greek. I'm pretty sure all of Ancient Greek is on a CD Rom. I've been corresponding with a Greek scholar for a couple of decades. I asked him about the definition of the words from which 'prophet' and 'prophecy' derived. My belief is that it refers to words spoken under either real or alleged inspiration of what is believed to be God, or gods, or spirits. He didn't disagree with my definition, but he said to actually agree with it, he would have to do an incredible amount of research (which presumably he is doing) because it is easier to say how a word is used than how a word is not used. Later, he could end up with egg on his face if he were to say how the word were not used. Anyway, my point is we understand the meaning of words by how they are acutally used.

Fortunately, Wayne Grudem has sifted through the uses of 'kephale' in Greek. His article on the subject does not agree with some of the statements you have made.

Grudem's article is:
Does Kefalh (“Head”) Mean “Source” Or “Authority Over” in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples*

It is available online at:
http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/does-kephale-mean-head-or-authority-over.pdf

While the article is somewhat technical, it is written in such a way that an educated person can follow most of it without knowing Greek, or anything beyond the pronunciaton system.

The word Kephale means the physical head, or in the case of Eph. 5, the figurative or metaphorical head. The husband is instructed to be the head, but it also misses the definition which is more commonly found in the Greek, which is "the one who went before his troops." Not the ruler, general or king who was the supreme leader, but rather the one who was going to take the bullet for the team. (By the way, I found your definition of the word Kephale on the NAS Greek Lexicon, a lexicon which I have never heard of.)

Here is a quote from Plutarch that Grudem uses in his article on the use of 'head' in relation to a general.

In relation to the use of kephale in the military, Grudem quotes Plutarch,
"(23) Plutarch Pelopidas 2.1.3: In an army, “the light-armed troops are like the hands, the
cavalry like the feet, the line of men-at-arms itself like chest and breastplate, and the general
is like the head.” "

The one reliable way to find out what the meaning of a Greek word is, is to look in the Septuagint, or the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, which was translated by the experts of their time, well before the time of Christ. They knew both languages and culture far better than any expert scholar of our day.

Grudem's examination of the Septuagint and his references to it do not seem to back up your assertions. Maybe you have some quote from ancient Greek about the general walking in front of the other soldiers. Generals lead. I don't know if it was ever the role of the general to be the equivalent of the first scout, to take a shot on the bettle field. In more recent centuries, officers were in the back since they were so valuable.


The following quotes from Grudem start with quotes from the Septuagint (LXX) which indicate that kephale was indeed used to refer to rulers in a hierarchical sense. What else was Jephthah desiring to be?

(4) Judges 10:18: “And the people, the leaders of Gilead, said to one another, ‘Who is the man
that will begin to fight against the Ammonites? He shall be head over all the inhabitants of
Gilead.’”23

(5) Judges 11:8: “And the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, ‘That is why we have turned to
you now, that you may go with us and fight with the Ammonites, and be our head over all the
inhabitants of Gilead.’”24

(6) Judges 11:9: “Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, ‘If you bring me home again to fight
with the Ammonites, and the Lord gives them over to me, I will be your head.’”

(7) Judges 11:11: “So Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and all the people made him
head and leader over them.”

(8) 2 Kings 22:44 [2 Samuel 22:44]: David says to God, “You shall keep me as
the head of the Gentiles: a people which I knew not served me.”

(9) 3 Kings 8:1 [1 Kings 8:1] (Alexandrinus): “Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel
and all the heads of the tribes.”

(10) Psalm 17:43 [Psalm 18:43]: David says to God, “You will make me head of the Gentiles:
a people whom I knew not served me.”

(11–12) Isaiah 7:8: “For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin”
(in both cases “head” means “ruler”: Damascus is the city that rules over Syria, and Rezin is
the king who rules over Damascus).

(13–14) Isaiah 7:9: “And the head of Ephriam is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is the son
of Remaliah.”

(15–16) Isaiah 9:14–16: (In the context of judgment) “So the Lord cut off from Israel head
and tail … the elder and honored man is the head, and the prophet who teaches lies is the tail;
for those who lead this people lead them astray.” Here the leaders of the people are called
“head.”

(17) Testament of Reuben 2:2: The seven spirits of deceit are the “heads” or “leaders”
(κεφαλαί, plural) of the works of innovation.

(18) Philo On Dreams 2.207: ‘“Head’ we interpret allegorically to mean the ruling part of the
soul.”

(19) Philo Moses 2.30: “As the head is the ruling place in the living body, so Ptolemy became
among kings.”

(20) Philo Moses 2:82: “The mind is head and ruler of the sense-faculty in US.”

Philo was roughly contemporary with the writing of the New Testament.

In Hebrew, the word "rosh" is beginning or head, or ruler. If you look closely at each time the word is translated as kephale, it is either translated as physical head, or in a rare case, for one who is at the head of the troops.

That doesn't match up with the references to the Septuagint quoted above. My impression from Grudem's article is that the case for kephale referring, when used as a metaphor, to the leader in a hierarchical relationship is rather strong, depending on the contex tof course.

Arche is always used for ruler, supreme leader in every single example in the Septuagint. Since Paul was familiar with both the Septuagint and Hebrew versions of the Old Testament, he was also very careful not to imply that the man was in some way supreme over his wife, but rather, willing to take the sword (or bullet) for his wife, just as Christ allowed himself to be crucified for his church. That is the true definition of servanthood, to lay down your life for a friend, as Christ did for the church, and the husband must do for his wife.

Paul may have used kephale because it has a much deeper, richer meaning than arche-- not because headship did not imply leadership and authority, but because arche could have missed some of the denotations and connotations of kephale, and had connotations he did not want to invoke. The main issue here is inspiration. If the Spirit inspired and revealed the concept of kephale, which is closely tied to the physical concept of head, then it wouldn't have been right for Paul to use the word 'arche.' The fact that he did not use arche does not do away with the many uses of kephale to indicate a hierarchical relationship.

Since only two verses before the Kephale statement in Eph. 5:23, Paul instructs everyone to mutually submit to one another - to voluntarily come under and be servants, it makes no sense that suddenly Paul is telling men that they are the supreme rulers of their wives.

I doubt you could find a conservative scholar who would translate kephale as 'supreme ruler.' That seems to be a bit of a strawman argument. The head of man is Christ, so a regular man cannot be supreme ruler.

You are assuming that submit to one another is a reciprocal thing. Looking specifically in the passage, one type of person is supposed to submit to another, wives to husbands, children obey your parents, slaves obey your masters.

Can we both agree that the scripture puts at least a heavier emphasis on wives submitting to their husbands? The Bible never calls a man's wife his lord or tells him to obey her. But God called Abraham Sarah's lord (ba'al) and Sarah called him her lord (adonai). Peter exhorts wives to follow Sarah's example who 'obeyed Abraham, calling him lord' by submitting to their own husbands.


I do not believe husbands should lord over their wives. Wives should willingly submit to their own husbands. Husbands should exercise leadership, acting as head. The husband isn't commanded to be the head. He already is automatically. Husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church, and give their wives proper honor that their prayers be not hindered.

(scripture quotes there I didn't cite, so please don't call the plaigarism police.)

 

[Angela53510]

I want to thank you for actually discussing the Bible, for once. However, I don't consider Wayne Grudem to be an expert in this area. Regardless of his "scholarly" credentials!

I read the intro to "Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood" in a sample on my Kindle. His first complaint about women, wasn't in any way, shape or form based on any text in the Bible.

He stated something to the effect (I have forgotten the exact words) that women who work out in gyms and lift weights are disgusting and unfeminine and they defy God's plan for them as submissive women.

After I stopped laughing, I had to recall my orthopedic surgeon and my rheumatologist's instructions, as well as every physiotherapist I have visited. Keep the muscles strong and stretched, and the joints will be supported and you will have less pain and degenerative of the joints. So I have been working out privately in my basement on weights, free and the universal my husband bought and moved there for me.

Grudem's intro in his book is VERY relevant, since I have severe Rheumatoid Arthritis compounded by secondary Oestoarthritis, and a very bad whiplash. Since I listened to my doctors, I have been exercising as I am able, when the medications are working, and I am more fit than most 60 year old women, and my joints are healthier and in less pain. Yet Wayne Grudem's opening salvo in this foundational book is to criticize the looks of certain women who don't meet his criteria for HIS style of women. Tell that to the women in the Bible who had to work the fields, the looms, tend the cattle, fetch the water from the wells, and all the other work that living in the ancient near east entailed. My bet is that other than the queens, most of the woman would probably have looked a lot more like someone who lifts weights, than the thin, spindly types who do nothing to take care of the bodies God gave them!

It was supposed to be a book on the Biblical basis of complementarianism, and instead I got a personal rant about his choice in wives who fit his definition of beauty!!

Regarding my use of Strong's, I realize that it is a limited and a 100 year old source. I have about 5 other exegetical sources and lexicons I also consulted for the Greek (more for the Hebrew, and I looked into the Septuagint on-line!). But rather than write them all out, I found it easier to go copy and paste an internet version of Strong's. My apologies!

However, I do agree with Grudem about Kephale not meaning source, I have researched that one thoroughly, and certainly never said that in my previous post. That strange theory was introduced by Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger, in their book, I Suffer Not a Woman. It makes no sense to me, and I would never use it to discuss Kephale. In addition, I confess I was a bit puzzled about some of those Grudem references.

17) Testament of Reuben 2:2: The seven spirits of deceit are the “heads” or “leaders”
(κεφαλαί, plural) of the works of innovation.

(18) Philo On Dreams 2.207: ‘“Head’ we interpret allegorically to mean the ruling part of the
soul.”

(19) Philo Moses 2.30: “As the head is the ruling place in the living body, so Ptolemy became
among kings.”

(20) Philo Moses 2:82: “The mind is head and ruler of the sense-faculty in US.”

Since when are any of these texts Biblical?? Philo was a Jew, and wrote accordingly. I confess, I don't have a clue who Reuben was, I guess we learn something every day! Except I still don't know who this supposed source is? Some disaffected Jew, or an Alexandrian Jew like Philo, who was barely mentioned in Josphesus' writings, which are standard non-Christian sources for that era.

I guess I will quote the internet, but only because it confirms what I was taught!

Philo Judaeus, also called Philo of Alexandria (born 15–10bce, Alexandria—died 45–50 ce, Alexandria), Greek-speaking Jewish philosopher, the most important representative of Hellenistic Judaism. His writings provide the clearest view of this development of Judaism in the Diaspora. As the first to attempt to synthesize revealed faith and philosophic reason, he occupies a unique position in the history of philosophy.

Philo Judaeus (Jewish philosopher) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Sorry for the bold print. Yes, you read it right, Philo was the philosopher who basically tried to fuse Greek philosophy (read pagan) with Judaism. Not exactly the kind of person you want to trust for Christian theology, is it?

As far as the Sarah quote you keep bringing up, let's talk ancient Ugarit and Canaanite culture. In fact, that society may have had cultural mores that required women to call their men "lord" or ba'al. But that is merely a record of that time, and those people, not an universal instruction for all marriages until Jesus returns. Next, you will have us lying to people about our marriage status so we don't get in trouble with ruling authorities, with the result that Pharaoh nearly slept with Sarai, hardly a godly thing for any man, Jew or Christian to be doing to his beloved wife, is it? You have to take that language in light of not only the culture, but that the Bible shows over and over in the relationship between Abram and Sarai that lying, adultery, jealousy and ill treatment of slaves is the standard we should be using now. Yes, they did all of that! So no, I am not going to call my husband "lord" - that is reserved for my real Lord and Master - Jesus Christ! As for Peter's text about wives obeying like Sarah, wasn't Peter the one who Paul had to firmly admonish at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 for becoming a Judaiser? So yes, he wrote that, and the text has been faithfully copied. On the other hand, he may have had a very legitimate reason for having to say this to the wives in Jerusalem, or perhaps Rome, where the women were playing havoc with their marriages, the men and their church. By no means do I believe that all women are perfect, and men evil. But I do agree that there is a group of men, esp. within the fundamentalist evangelical church, who are basically using the Bible to oppress woman and suppress their God given gifts and talents.

I am in a Bible study run by a former Seminary professor. There are many pastors, missionaries, and pastors wives in the group. (Some of the women are retired missionaries, too!) Some of the men will not even comment on a post by any of the women, including the women that are on the mission field right now in countries closed to the gospel. Yet one woman, a former missionary to Korea with her husband, is working on her Ph.d, writing incredible Bible studies, with the encouragement of her husband.

So who is right? The men who refuse to even comment in a forum on women's threads, or the men and women missionaries who are heeding God's call, and helping people come to Christ and leading them to grow into spiritual maturity?? I will not pre-guess your answer.

Anyway, Grudem is not going to do for a source, but I certainly appreciate your attempt to actually discuss the Bible and bring different scholars into the discussion! I prefer Stanley Grenz and John Stackhouse, who have both come out as egalitarians and written some incredibly scholarly books rebuking everything that Wayne Grudem, and John Piper for that matter, have said in this discussion. I really did try to read their book, and I have a great appreciation and respect for Piper when he is talking about grace, and exegeting the actual Greek, but this whole Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is based on personal feelings and a very bad forcing of the text to read what they want it to say, also called eisegesis. Piper, in fact, has been quoted as saying he will not listen to a woman, but he will read what she wrote and talked about in public, if it is scholarly. This has to be the height of hypocrisy and putting women down. He doesn't like the idea of women speaking in public, yet if she has written something well, and scholarly, he is willing to read it. Well, each to his own!

And I am sorry I am back on this thread again, after I promised to go. I did feel you gave an honest, Biblical answer, that I needed to respond to.

But I am submissive to my husband, make no mistake! I do not call him lord or master, but I do heed his wishes, and listen to him in all things. My husband is a wonderful man, a great husband and father. But even as I try and discuss the posts here, and theology, he asked me today, "Why do you care about these things?" 7 years of Seminary, and you would think he would understand my passion for God's Word! He is a godly man, loves the Lord, but has never moved on to theology, interpretation and doesn't know half the words in my vocabulary. And that is alright too! He loves God and me, and that is the basis of any good marriage.

In the end, you and I may have to agree to disagree. What I object to most about this post, is that the title is a sweeping generalization and condemnation of anyone (including men) who have a different theology regarding male/female relationships. This issue is polarizing Christians and denominations, and it is simply not furthering the cause of Christ, condemning women who believe in the justice ideals of the early feminists as "dangerous!" NOT!

I do respect that you have some strong views, although I do not agree with your exegetics! But you have always been polite, and respectful, despite the shocking title, and I respect you for that, and for responding to my post with actual Bible verses, although whether they actually spoke to the topic is debatable! But now I am getting nasty, besides being very LONG winded again.

I've had a hard day after my chemo infusion yesterday, so I will retire and pray that God will open the eyes of your heart in all things to do with Christ and God (Eph. 1:17-23)

 

[presidente]

I want to thank you for actually discussing the Bible, for once. However, I don't consider Wayne Grudem to be an expert in this area. Regardless of his "scholarly" credentials!

I read the intro to "Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood" in a sample on my Kindle. His first complaint about women, wasn't in any way, shape or form based on any text in the Bible.

He stated something to the effect (I have forgotten the exact words) that women who work out in gyms and lift weights are disgusting and unfeminine and they defy God's plan for them as submissive women.

After I stopped laughing, I had to recall my orthopedic surgeon and my rheumatologist's instructions, as well as every physiotherapist I have visited. Keep the muscles strong and stretched, and the joints will be supported and you will have less pain and degenerative of the joints. So I have been working out privately in my basement on weights, free and the universal my husband bought and moved there for me.

I haven't read the book. But the work he did in the article I posted stands on its own merit. There is something to be said for digging through thousands of occurences of how a word was used.

As far as weightlifting and beauty goes, I probably share Grudem's distates of beefy weight-lifting and women. But light weight-lifting is supposed to be healthy for women, especially as they age. He may have seen some body builders in the gym and found it distasteful. But it sounds like that book was a different type of work from the article under discussion.

Regarding my use of Strong's, I realize that it is a limited and a 100 year old source. I have about 5 other exegetical sources and lexicons I also consulted for the Greek (more for the Hebrew, and I looked into the Septuagint on-line!). But rather than write them all out, I found it easier to go copy and paste an internet version of Strong's. My apologies!

No problem. But five sources can parrot each other. Some aspects of translation are very dependent on tradition and parroting other sources, such as translating 'proskuneo' as 'worship' rather than 'prostrate. Using lexicons is not the same as looking at the actual sources.

Since when are any of these texts Biblical?? Philo was a Jew, and wrote accordingly. I confess, I don't have a clue who Reuben was, I guess we learn something every day! Except I still don't know who this supposed source is? Some disaffected Jew, or an Alexandrian Jew like Philo, who was barely mentioned in Josphesus' writings, which are standard non-Christian sources for that era.

I mentioned in my previous post that the first references in the list were from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. I'm not sure who Rueben is. My guess is it would be a psuedapigraphal work attributed to one of the patriarchs. The question is how the word was used in Greek, so these sources are valid.

Philo Judaeus, also called Philo of Alexandria (born 15–10bce, Alexandria—died 45–50 ce, Alexandria), Greek-speaking Jewish philosopher, the most important representative of Hellenistic Judaism. His writings provide the clearest view of this development of Judaism in the Diaspora. As the first to attempt to synthesize revealed faith and philosophic reason, he occupies a unique position in the history of philosophy.

Philo Judaeus (Jewish philosopher) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Sorry for the bold print. Yes, you read it right, Philo was the philosopher who basically tried to fuse Greek philosophy (read pagan) with Judaism. Not exactly the kind of person you want to trust for Christian theology, is it?

You didn't study Philo and his understanding of the 'logos' as art of the MDiv? it's similar to John's understanding.

The question Grudem is addressing is how the word 'kephale' is used. Both the LXX and Philo's writings are excellent sources to study for this question. The LXX was very influential on Jewish religious language in Greek, like the KJV was 40 years ago in English. Philo was a Greek-speaking Jew living about the same time Paul wrote his epistles. So this gives us an example of how words were used in other sources during the same time period.

The issue is a linguistic one as much as it is a theological one. Philo's use of the word is very relevant.

As far as the Sarah quote you keep bringing up, let's talk ancient Ugarit and Canaanite culture. In fact, that society may have had cultural mores that required women to call their men "lord" or ba'al. But that is merely a record of that time, and those people, not an universal instruction for all marriages until Jesus returns. Next, you will have us lying to people about our marriage status so we don't get in trouble with ruling authorities, with the result that Pharaoh nearly slept with Sarai, hardly a godly thing for any man, Jew or Christian to be doing to his beloved wife, is it? You have to take that language in light of not only the culture, but that the Bible shows over and over in the relationship between Abram and Sarai that lying, adultery, jealousy and ill treatment of slaves is the standard we should be using now. Yes, they did all of that! So no, I am not going to call my husband "lord" - that is reserved for my real Lord and Master - Jesus Christ!

Peter used this as an example to illustrate the type of submission wives were to show their husbands. I don't think you have to call your husband 'lord', but you should look at Sarah's example of subjection to her husband and immitate it. Peter did not say that these patriarchs were without fault.

As for Peter's text about wives obeying like Sarah, wasn't Peter the one who Paul had to firmly admonish at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 for becoming a Judaiser?

No, but Paul did address Peter not eating with the Gentiles in Antioch, though. And it probably happened before the Jerusalem Council. That does not mean that Peter taught false doctrine or that his epistle in the New Testament is not inspired. Do you think we should remove I Peter from the Bible because he neglected to eat with Gentiles in Antioch on that occasion? Jesus told Peter that He would give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Paul went to Jerusalem to make sure he hadn't run his race in vain. Apparently, he was preaching the same Gospel as Peter and John.

So yes, he wrote that, and the text has been faithfully copied. On the other hand, he may have had a very legitimate reason for having to say this to the wives in Jerusalem, or perhaps Rome, where the women were playing havoc with their marriages, the men and their church.

But for all we know what they were doing with their marriages could have made them look like perfect wives in comparison to modern feminist wives.

Your approach to the Bible is troublesome. Here is a passage you probably find difficult, so do you assume that it must be in there-- not to say what it actually plainly says-- but to address some problem we don't know about that happened in the past, but doesn't apply to us? Even if there was a specific problem Peter had in mind, the passage still applies to us.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians not to sleep with prostitutes. We could dig into history and culture and argue that the reason Paul didn't want the men to sleep with prostitutes was because it was an idolatrous practice. But it's still wrong to sleep with prostitutes even if no direct idolatry is involved. Moses told the Israelites 'Thou shalt not steal.' Maybe the Hebrews back then were stealing blankets from each other a lot. But even if that were the case, that doesn't mean it's okay to steal if we aren't living in the desert and what is being stolen isn't a blanket. The Bible says 'do not murder', but that was originally spoken to people who lived in the desert. We could use a loose cultural historical 'it doesn't apply to me' approach and say killing is okay if it is in the jungle or in the arctic, but not in the desert. Isn't that similar to trying to explain away Peter's instructions on wives submitting to husbands based on the idea that he must have been addressing people in a particular situation?

By no means do I believe that all women are perfect, and men evil. But I do agree that there is a group of men, esp. within the fundamentalist evangelical church, who are basically using the Bible to oppress woman and suppress their God given gifts and talents.

If that is the case, does that mean that women do not need to obey what the Bible teaches them in I Peter 3? I think you are raising a different issue.

Anyway, Grudem is not going to do for a source, but I certainly appreciate your attempt to actually discuss the Bible and bring different scholars into the discussion!

If I were arguing 'because Wayne Grudem says so' I could understand your response. What I did was quote some of his quotes from other sources. I think he actually read through a lot of those sources, so his opinions in the article may carry some weight because they are informed opinions. If he doesn't like female body building, that doesn't have all that much to do with the topic of the article.

Piper, in fact, has been quoted as saying he will not listen to a woman, but he will read what she wrote and talked about in public, if it is scholarly. This has to be the height of hypocrisy and putting women down. He doesn't like the idea of women speaking in public, yet if she has written something well, and scholarly, he is willing to read it. Well, each to his own!

I don't see how that his 'hypocrisy' in the least, at least not according to a Biblical understanding of the term. Maybe Piper thinks it is inappropriate for women to teach specifically in a church setting, and limits it to that. But that is no reason to accuse him of being an actor, or of being insincere.

But I am submissive to my husband, make no mistake! I do not call him lord or master, but I do heed his wishes, and listen to him in all things.

That's a good thing. And Paul even wrote that older women were to teach the younger women to submit to their own husbands among other things.

In the end, you and I may have to agree to disagree. What I object to most about this post, is that the title is a sweeping generalization and condemnation of anyone (including men) who have a different theology regarding male/female relationships. This issue is polarizing Christians and denominations, and it is simply not furthering the cause of Christ, condemning women who believe in the justice ideals of the early feminists as "dangerous!" NOT!

I think we have different definitions of 'feminist.' I think calling what you consider 'the early feminists' 'feminists' is probably anachronistic.

I've had a hard day after my chemo infusion yesterday, so I will retire and pray that God will open the eyes of your heart in all things to do with Christ and God (Eph. 1:17-23)

I'll pray for your healing and speedy recovery.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

[video=youtube_share;58HWbln_n2k]http://youtu.be/58HWbln_n2k[/video]

In Greek myth, the Harpies were female monsters who caused mischief. They were known for their hideous appearance and smell. They were always ravenously hungry and would steal food or even eat their victims before carrying away their souls.

The Harpies were repulsive to look at, and they spread filth everywhere they went. They stank so much that whatever they touched gave off a terrible smell.

They were associated with unfairness and random bad luck. A Harpy could come out of nowhere, ruin plans, and destroy people's lives.

In modern times, the word harpy is sometimes used for a mean, heartless woman. However, some people also see the Harpies as a symbol of feminism.

I would argue that liberal and radical feminists correlate very closely to the character attributes of harpies in mythology... as you have seen for yourself in this thread.

 

[biscuit]

[video=youtube_share;58HWbln_n2k]http://youtu.be/58HWbln_n2k[/video]

In Greek myth, the Harpies were female monsters who caused mischief. They were known for their hideous appearance and smell. They were always ravenously hungry and would steal food or even eat their victims before carrying away their souls.

The Harpies were repulsive to look at, and they spread filth everywhere they went. They stank so much that whatever they touched gave off a terrible smell.

They were associated with unfairness and random bad luck. A Harpy could come out of nowhere, ruin plans, and destroy people's lives.

In modern times, the word harpy is sometimes used for a mean, heartless woman. However, some people also see the Harpies as a symbol of feminism.

I would argue that liberal and radical feminists correlate very closely to the character attributes of harpies in mythology... as you have seen for yourself in this thread.

WHOA!!! LOL !!

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

This thread has been good for me [before the harpies attacked] in that I've been able to bring argumentation to the discussion (though I rushed and didn't always source) that very much refuted the false teaching of liberal "Christian" feminists like Monica who make patently false assertions about God, Jesus, scripture, etc... and showed how some of their core teachings are pure heresy.

Furthermore, I opened up the very heart of feminism (e.g. feminist ideology, doctrine, hermeneutics, etc...) and revealed something of how epistemologically flawed and self-serving modern feminism has become.

I have no complaints; however, about anything so far that I've read from you. From a societal and historical perspective, this statement of yours aligns with threads in natural law, enlightenment thinking, and democratic principles all the way back to Athenian democracy.

And you've, of course, seen the argumentation I've posted with respect to the equality of creation and how issues in the early church didn't extrapolate to male dominance over women in the manner some fundamentalists argue but rather reflected a problem in the early church with false teachers and heresy arising from some women within two local assemblies of the early church.

That said, I believe Christianity does posit a gender orderedness and we shall visit that discussion moving forward.

I believe this is a good discussion for us to have as it's an area of importance that many of us have taken for granted, in the manner we have both males and females, and we really need as Christians to understand God's perspective moving forward as a gender war is brewing in Western societies with the over reaching of modern feminists and the reactionary rise of the men's rights movement.

Looking forward to the discussion with godly women. I'm learning too. Peace.

I think that gender in religion and gender in society are slightly different situations. On the one hand, we are certainly different and should embrace all that it involves. On the other, I don't see a problem of either gender taking on most roles in society if they are able to do it without significant modifications.

For example, in the military, a woman have to meet the same requirements as a man, but her uniform and armor should be made to fit her. In certain situations, either gender becomes a liability and shouldn't be present. I think that active duty women in the military should be on the Depo shot to stop their cycles and prevent pregnancy because you can't risk military operations due of pregnancies or sanitation needs. Of course, if she is in a desk job, then that wouldn't apply. Those are the requirements of military life so either comply or don't sign up. But religious groups should get to set what roles gender plays in their worship as long as human rights are not being violated.

It's ignorant to ignore differences but bigoted to impose limitations that are common but not inherent. For example, most men are stronger than most women, but some women are stronger than some men. Most women are more nurturing than most men, but some men are more nurturing than some women. I hope that makes sense. It's just hard to get people to understand nuances to arguments as opposed to bumper-sticker slogans.

 

[Angela53510]

I haven't read the book. But the work he did in the article I posted stands on its own merit. There is something to be said for digging through thousands of occurences of how a word was used.

As far as weightlifting and beauty goes, I probably share Grudem's distates of beefy weight-lifting and women. But light weight-lifting is supposed to be healthy for women, especially as they age. He may have seen some body builders in the gym and found it distasteful. But it sounds like that book was a different type of work from the article under discussion.

Actually, the book was Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, by Wayne Grudem and John Piper and it is the signature or foundational book of the whole complementarian movement. The intro was about personal tastes. Now, men and women are allowed to have personal tastes in what they think is handsome or beautiful in the opposite gender. I have no issues with that! But it was the introduction to the entire complementarian movement, and the opening comment was that women should be weak and spindly. Now I happen to agree with you about "muscle bound" women being ugly, but I am not talking about that, and I don't think Grudem was. I think he was talking about any woman who tries to improve her body. Like I said, I work out to keep my body able to get out of bed at all in the morning, as my theology is that God created our bodies to move, to be active, and our society is very sedentary. I am far from muscle bound, but I reject that anyone should use their personal tastes in women's bodies to open a serious Biblical discussion. I was planning on buying the book and reading it, to be informed with a first hand source. But after that comment, I decided that there was no point in reading dubious propaganda by the opposing side, based on feelings and opinions, instead of solid Biblical exegesis.

Besides, I was led to read Stanley J. Grenz's book Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry, which was basically a rebuttal of the entire book by Grudem and Piper. Now, I know reading a criticism of the original document is not scholarly, unless you have first read the original, but after Grudem's comment about women's body shapes, I just could not force myself to read it.

I even read Dawkins' God Delusion for Apologetics, and a few rebuttals by Christians. Although Dawkins is a complete idiot, sadly, his kind of attacks on Christianity were the same kind as Grudem's, but somehow one expects stupidity from an atheist whose goal is to make money by being an idiot and getting on the best seller list.

Anyway, I did go through a lot of the Septuagint uses of Kephale, before I posted, and I do firmly believe that the man is the leader in terms of defending his wife and family. Physical strength made that necessarily in Bible days, but even today, I think men are more geared for that type of defensive action mentally and physically, while women are more geared for nurturing. That is not sexist, and may not apply to everyone, but I think generally it is true. But that does not mean I would force anyone in a marriage to take those roles, if they do not work.

About 2 years ago, I led a man to Christ on the internet. He had severe social anxiety disorder, and stayed home and took care of the children, while is wife went out to work. He started attending a local church, his wife got saved, then the children. But they did not change the way their lives worked, because of his mental illness, and they were happy the way things were working, and so were the children. The church, fortunately, did not push them into roles where the mother stayed home and the poor man had to go to work. That is what freedom from roles is about. God created each of us as unique and special people. If the submission "roles" thing works for a couple, who am I to say the woman is being oppressed? That is between them and God. But it is not the Biblical standard as laid out in Genesis 2, but a consequence of the Fall. Roles are the result of sin. And Christ has made us new creatures in him, which means women need to follow Jesus Christ, above all, and his calling.

So I guess I am saying, I don't like sweeping generalizations about men or women should do from anyone. As far as Peter's quote, which you obviously have taken as a life verse. In that same passage there is an instruction that women should not wear gold or braid their hair.

"Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—" 1 Peter 3:3.

My husband's grandmother went to a church that took this as the literal truth. His grandfather forced his grandmother to never wear jewelry, including a wedding ring, and she was not allowed to take her long hair and put it back into a braid around the back of her head, like the older Germanic women in her culture did. She obeyed, but it saddened her and the children. That is the bondage of legalism, especially when you consider that Peter was talking about hair-dos that took half the day for the slaves and servants to create, and were twisted with gold and precious jewels and were a status symbol. In our society, the braid is probably one of the simplest hair styles you can wear. My mother braided my long hair as a child, to keep it from tangling. So this verse is totally cultural!

However, I agree heartily with Peter's next comment in verse 4:

"but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. " 1 Peter 3:4

Now that is something I have been striving for since I read it the first year I was saved. And like I said, I always have submitted to my husband, out of reverence for Christ, so this is NOT an issue. What is an issue, is that Peter was a Jew, speaking to Jews, and using examples which the Jewish women would understand. Yet even in this case, submission is still used in the verse, never obey. Submission is voluntary, and although Sarah "obeyed" Abraham, as I said, she obeyed him when he told her to sin, and I really have to question that type of ethics.

If my husband told me to lie, or cheat or steal, or murder, I would disobey him without question. The ethics of the New Testament is that as a believer in Jesus Christ, I am responsible for my own walk with God. If my husband tries to make me do something contrary to God's Word, especially if it would damage other people, I would not do it. Now if you think that makes me a radical feminist, so be it. I call it the "authority of the believer." Peter himself said, when faced with being censored by the Sanhedrin,

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29.

Sarah may have obeyed Abraham to their detriment, but I have access to the whole word of God, and the leading of the Holy Spirit, so I will pray the Holy Spirit will guide and lead me to have the beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, while obeying God first! And if you think that is cherry picking, well so be it. The culture mores of Jewish culture, including Peter, who always struggled with the law versus grace, should be seen as a cultural and not universal truth. Sarah and Abraham's relationship is the worst possible model for a godly marriage, in light of all the destruction their disobedience to God (Hagar, for instance! And the resulting wars in the Middle East and the Muslim religion!) and calling Abram calling her his sister (actually, she was his half sister, so not a total lie!) but in light of hiding the truth of their marriage vows.

And I can certainly tell you, that if my husband had ever asked me to lie about my marital status to anyone, for the purpose of making me sleep with another man, even if it meant dying because of my disobedience, I would NOT obey my husband. Adultery and lying are simply against God's laws. Besides the whole thought being so repugnant and disgusting.

No, but Paul did address Peter not eating with the Gentiles in Antioch, though. And it probably happened before the Jerusalem Council. That does not mean that Peter taught false doctrine or that his epistle in the New Testament is not inspired. Do you think we should remove I Peter from the Bible because he neglected to eat with Gentiles in Antioch on that occasion? Jesus told Peter that He would give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Paul went to Jerusalem to make sure he hadn't run his race in vain. Apparently, he was preaching the same Gospel as Peter and John.

Inspiration of scripture doesn't mean every word is true, it means it is the accurate recording of the lives, the journeys and the revealing of Jesus Christ as the perfect model, and Saviour for all humanity. I take issue with the fact that 1 Peter was written before the Jerusalem council. 1 Peter was likely written in Rome, probably before the Neronian persecution (or it would have been mentioned in one way or another.) Likely, the time frame was probably somewhere around 62-63 AD, according to most scholars.

Estimates for the Jerusalem Council, in Acts 15, which is only half way through the book of Acts, is around 48-49 BC. So Peter had been warned about his Judaising, and in fact, the first ever council was called while Peter was still in Jerusalem to deal with issues like food and circumcision. While they may not have dealt with this specific issue, Paul gives so much more freedom to women, uses them in ministry, although he does have to deal with the unruly women in Corinth and Ephesus, in his epistles. Peter had defaulted his position to Paul, I feel at the Jerusalem Council, as the de facto leader of the Christian church, and even Peter does not understand some of Paul's deeper writings.

Peter was God's anointed man at Pentecost, there is no doubt about it, but this unlearned fisherman could not lead the church in the way that Paul did - fighting heresy, planting many churches, and spreading the gospel throughout the Roman empire, because of his his triplicate citizenship and his knowledge of Greek, Latin and Hebrew, and most important, his calling to the Gentiles, and his miraculous conversion.

I think we have different definitions of 'feminist.' I think calling what you consider 'the early feminists' 'feminists' is probably anachronistic.

I think you are probably very right about our different definitions of the word "feminist". However, I do not believe my definition is anachronistic but rather the true, historical definition of feminism. Christian women are needed in the challenge to spread the gospel and to fight evils, like abortion and slavery, which still exists even in the US today, as teenagers who are sold into the sex trade are used as chattel, and horribly damaged. I have a missionary friend who is very involved in helping former sex slaves reintegrate back into society.

I agree the term "feminist" has been abused my liberals and radicals, but as a follower of Jesus Christ, I am taking back the real meaning of the word, which is to fight for justice for all people. The Bible is a book about justice, God's justice in restoring us to be the people God once created us to be. We need to care for the poor, the sick, visit those in prison and to set the captives free.

"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. [SUP]17 [/SUP]And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,[SUP]18 [/SUP]“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
[SUP]19 [/SUP]to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”

[SUP]20 [/SUP]And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue werefixed on him. [SUP]21 [/SUP]And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” Luke 4:16-21

Jesus came to set us free from legalism, bondage, from the consequences of sin and death, including the roles which resulted from sin in the fall. That is true feminism - following Christ our Lord and Saviour, and leading the blind from the rigid roles created by the Fall, and the traditions of men.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Misty,

Another comment I have revolves around the difference between "secular" and "Christian" with respect to almost any topic. For example (and this is an eclectic example so bear with me), when I look at late 19th century/early 20th century liberalism I see two strains develop.

The secular strain eventually gained dominance over the Christian strain and what resulted were state atheistic communist states whose sweeping democide, severe persecution, archeological destruction, etc... is well documented.

The Christian strain; however, posited a very different future. Go back to the first liberal political group in Russia, the Union of Liberation established in 1904, and notice the sharp distinction between those who espoused secular idealism and those who believed that idealism could only be valid within the Christian worldview.

Pay special attention to Bulgakov's Christian socialism which is the most complete expression of Christian socialism ever produced in Russia. Note the early personalism and the value placed on the individual with absolute significance in line with Imago Dei. As you read through his work, one is struck by how unnecessary the entire experience of the Soviet Union was and what could have been instead.

So much destruction, so many lives lost, so many lives destroyed, so much persecution, so much... so much... so much and all ultimately for nothing as it collapsed upon itself in the end.

But more than one seed was present at the beginning. Yet only the one that discarded the Christian worldview was chosen.

 

[Donkeyfish07]

This thread has been good for me [before the harpies attacked] in that I've been able to bring argumentation to the discussion .......and showed how some of their core teachings are pure heresy.

Looking forward to the discussion with godly women. I'm learning too. Peace.

Everyone should know by now I'm not a feminist fan BUT, just because there are some harpies around as you call them.....doesn't mean there isn't a percentage of women (and men) out there that have very pure goals regarding feminism. Like this recent Iraqi law for example.

Proposed Iraqi law 'legalises rape' | Stuff.co.nz

The problem with it, is you have the good fruit of groups that are feminist in nature that are just trying to prevent situations like the example I just gave.....getting hijacked by people and twisting it into perverted things that have nothing to do with defending the rights of women that are in predicaments like the above. I'm not posting this because I think you need to be educated, it's just some thoughts I wanted to add to the conversation.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Feminism =

 

[Misty77]

Feminism =

Again, correlation does not imply causation.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

But it certainly can be. In this case feminism is a primary cause. Some of the most prominent feminists and famous women make openly hateful anti-male statements and the mainstream feminist organizations say and do nothing to distance themselves from such public statements. It's obvious what feminism has become and the danger it poses to males.

Modern men are not ignorant nor naive about the influence of second and third wave feminism on government and the real and present danger it poses to their lives. Ask most young men if they want to marry a feminist and they will tell you NO. And neither do I.

Just look at the statistics for 30-34 year old white female marriages plunge downward.

The prospect of renting a room and living in abject poverty for many years so a feminist ex-wife who "liberated" herself from me in a no fault divorce could "achieve her full potential," training my children to despise me in the process, yet never "liberating" herself off my paycheck putting me in a demographic with an astronomical suicide rate (e.g. the divorced male) has ZERO appeal for me.

And obviously for the vast majority of other males as well. Celibacy truly is "God's gift" in comparison to living in that condition which really is the status of an abused slave. Of course, non-Christians don't bother with celibacy but they increasingly don't bother with marriage anymore either.

As Linda Gordon, a radical feminist writer, attempted to rally her feminist "sisters" against the nuclear family which has been portrayed by feminists as a tool of patriarchy since the origins of feminism by announcing, 'The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together..."

Well Linda has certainly gotten her wish for men obviously are increasingly NOT marrying women at all. And, anyone who seriously believes that the sweeping social movement of second wave feminism had nothing to do with this is either severely developmentally disabled, ignorant to a fault, or much more likely: in a deep state of denial.

8 reasons straight men don’t want to get married

More information on the anti-male feminist supremacy movement that still likes to refer to itself as "feminism" for the association to morality perk despite having transformed in the West to a destroyer of morality, the family, and males:

[video=youtube_share;AQWoNhrY_fM]http://youtu.be/AQWoNhrY_fM[/video]

Again, correlation does not imply causation.

 

[presidente]

Actually, the book was Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, by Wayne Grudem and John Piper and it is the signature or foundational book of the whole complementarian movement.

I don't know when the term 'complementarian' was termed, but generally complementarians hold to a very historic view on the role of men and women. For early examles, see the New Testament, or a little later, John Chrysostom's sermon on marriage for examples.

So I guess I am saying, I don't like sweeping generalizations about men or women should do from anyone. As far as Peter's quote, which you obviously have taken as a life verse. In that same passage there is an instruction that women should not wear gold or braid their hair.

I don't spend a lot of time on I Peter 3 unless discussing this topic, since it lays out certain issues very clearly and contradicts 'egalitarian' arguments about other passages.

John Piper would point out that the verse you mention is a matter of emphasis, and that Peter is not telling women not to wear clothes. He would take the comments of Peter about jewelry the same way.

My husband's grandmother went to a church that took this as the literal truth. His grandfather forced his grandmother to never wear jewelry, including a wedding ring, and she was not allowed to take her long hair and put it back into a braid around the back of her head, like the older Germanic women in her culture did. She obeyed, but it saddened her and the children. That is the bondage of legalism, especially when you consider that Peter was talking about hair-dos that took half the day for the slaves and servants to create, and were twisted with gold and precious jewels and were a status symbol. In our society, the braid is probably one of the simplest hair styles you can wear. My mother braided my long hair as a child, to keep it from tangling. So this verse is totally cultural!

It doesn't sound like it was (necessarily) the Judaizer type of 'legalism', the damnable type. That sort of thing may make a lot of sense for someone in a traditional Anabaptist culture.

Now that is something I have been striving for since I read it the first year I was saved. And like I said, I always have submitted to my husband, out of reverence for Christ, so this is NOT an issue. What is an issue, is that Peter was a Jew, speaking to Jews, and using examples which the Jewish women would understand. Yet even in this case, submission is still used in the verse, never obey. Submission is voluntary, and although Sarah "obeyed" Abraham, as I said, she obeyed him when he told her to sin, and I really have to question that type of ethics.

Using Sarah as an example of obedience is something hard to wrap my mind around, since a couple of times she ended up in a harem over it. It'd have a hard time encouraging a woman to do that. Of course, she was his sister.

Something else to keep in mind is that we have certain understanding and revelation they did not. They apparently though polygamy was okay. And they were close relatives, too. There is no record of a law against lying being given. Even the Hebrews several hundred years later were forbidden from certain categories of lying, bearing false witness against their neighbor, and lying to one another.

Sarah may have obeyed Abraham to their detriment,[/quote

In the case of Abimelech, God kept her from being violated. We don't know about Pharoah.

And if you think that is cherry picking, well so be it. The culture mores of Jewish culture, including Peter, who always struggled with the law versus grace, should be seen as a cultural and not universal truth.

That sounds like liberal cherry picking to me. Paul teaches basically the same truths to Gentiles. I Peter does illustrate some points in more depth, and his use of langauge shows that the type of submission they were talking about implies obedience.

Sarah and Abraham's relationship is the worst possible model for a godly marriage, in light of all the destruction their disobedience to God (Hagar, for instance!

Worst possible model? The Bible doesn't say that. Sarah is presented as an examle of a righteous wife. I kind of find it encouraging that if God could make the father of faith, an example of someone justified by faith out of a man who was married to his sister who had all those weaknesses, He can justify us as well and use us.

Where is the disobedience in the case of Hagar? Paul says sin is not imputed when there is no law.

And the resulting wars in the Middle East and the Muslim religion!)

Those sorts of comments, which I've heard from preachers all my life, don't sit well with me. I've known some Christians form the middle east. It doesn't sit well with me to tell them that they exist because of Abraham's sin, and if they and their people never existed, we wouldn't have all these political problems. The Bible say some good things about the Ishmaelites it doesn't say about most other people groups. How many other people-groups have a specific blessing on them in the Bible, even if it isn't the child of the promise type blessing? Abraham prayed that Ishmael might live before Him, and God said that He heard His prayer. He would make of Him a great prayer. I can't find any passage that says that the Irish will live, or the Angles or Celts specifically.

and calling Abram calling her his sister (actually, she was his half sister, so not a total lie!) but in light of hiding the truth of their marriage vows.

They probably didn't take the Roman Catholic or Anglican wedding vows we are familiar with.

I take issue with the fact that 1 Peter was written before the Jerusalem council. 1 Peter was likely written in Rome, probably before the Neronian persecution (or it would have been mentioned in one way or another.) Likely, the time frame was probably somewhere around 62-63 AD, according to most scholars.

Not I Peter, Galatians. In the 1800's, scholars believed Galatia was a province a bit far north in Asia Minor. But later, scholarship uncovered the fact that in the first century, it extended to the southern coast, including the territory of many of the so-called 'first missionary journey' churches. The border was moved later in the second or third century. Therefore, they believed Galatians had been written after the council of Jerusalem and that Paul had evangelized Galatia later without it being mentioned in Acts. But right after the council, Paul takes the letters to certain churches, and also takes it to Galatia.

It is likely that the 'Galatia' Paul reached was the geographic Galatians, named after their province, of the south, not the ethnic Galatians, the Celts of the area deeper in-land in Asia minor.

Estimates for the Jerusalem Council, in Acts 15, which is only half way through the book of Acts, is around 48-49 BC. So Peter had been warned about his Judaising, and in fact, the first ever council was called while Peter was still in Jerusalem to deal with issues like food and circumcision.

I think you accuse Peter too strongly if you accuse him of 'Judaizing.' He ate separately from the Gentiles, which influenced others.

While they may not have dealt with this specific issue, Paul gives so much more freedom to women, uses them in ministry, although he does have to deal with the unruly women in Corinth and Ephesus, in his epistles.

Are there any controversial verses about the role of women in the New Testament that women don't like that aren't written by Paul?

Paul also writes that the bishop was to be a man, a woman woman man, on two occasions.

Peter had defaulted his position to Paul, I feel at the Jerusalem Council, as the de facto leader of the Christian church, and even Peter does not understand some of Paul's deeper writings.

Reading Peter's writings, he says many of the same truths as Paul. In Acts 15, James seems to have quite a bit of influence. Chapter 22 seems to show that Paul was still a bit of an outsider. My guess is if you had asked first century Jews who the prominent leaders of the faith were, they would have said James, Peter, and maybe one of the other apostles or the Lord's brother as a third most influential person. Out in Asia Minor, the Christians might have said Paul. In Cyprus they might have said Barnabas and Paul.

I think you are probably very right about our different definitions of the word "feminist". However, I do not believe my definition is anachronistic but rather the true, historical definition of feminism.

Why do we need to have a 'true' definition different from the term already used? The term refers to an anti-patriachal movement that wants sameness between men and women, and always pushes for what is best for women according to its own philosophy?

Christian women are needed in the challenge to spread the gospel and to fight evils, like abortion and slavery, which still exists even in the US today, as teenagers who are sold into the sex trade are used as chattel, and horribly damaged. I have a missionary friend who is very involved in helping former sex slaves reintegrate back into society.

Conservative Christians who aren't in favor of 'feminism' are against these things, too. One doesn't have to be a 'feminist' to want what is good for women and girls.

I agree the term "feminist" has been abused my liberals and radicals, but as a follower of Jesus Christ, I am taking back the real meaning of the word, which is to fight for justice for all people. The Bible is a book about justice, God's justice in restoring us to be the people God once created us to be. We need to care for the poor, the sick, visit those in prison and to set the captives free.

I agree that justice is important for God, as is caring for the weak. I just don't think typical feminist understanding of justice corresponds that well on certain issues with God's idea of justice as has been revealed.

Jesus came to set us free from legalism, bondage, from the consequences of sin and death, including the roles which resulted from sin in the fall. That is true feminism - following Christ our Lord and Saviour, and leading the blind from the rigid roles created by the Fall, and the traditions of men.

Where does the Bible teach the fall create 'rigid roles'? Some of the differences in our biology no doubt were created before the fall. In Ephesians 5, the different roles that men and women play are tied to the account of the creation of woman, where we are told 'two shall be one flesh.' This speaks of Christ and the church, and husband and wife are to follow a pattern revealed through this in their marriages.

 

[presidente]

AgeofKnowledge,

If feminism has decreased the frequency of marriage, some of the effects may be indirect, and feminism is a part of many trends and philosphies leading to this.

One trend that has encouraged men not to marry is the 'milk for free' trend. Society has become accepting of fornicators. There is no or little stigma placed on it. Many men find they don't have to marry to have sex, and don't consider this to be immoral. So they can hook up and shack up to meet biological needs. The children are victims, as well as the partners in fornication and the next guy, or girl, who gets the used sexual partner in marriage or the next relationship.

Radical feminism had its role to play in promoting fornication, and in getting rid of the stigma on girls having sex before marriage.

I suspect the bum deal a lot of men get if they marry also contributes toward the lack of interest in marriage. The wife is free by state law to violate her marriage covenant, to check out whenever she wants, and she gets rewarded, often, with half of the man's finances, most of the time with the kids, and she is often rewarded for taking her children away from their father with a steady flow of child support payments that the state forces the man to pay under threat of debtor's prison and various other penalties.

Feminism has probably played a role in making no-fault divorces legal, at least indirectly by effecting people's thinking. It has probably played a role in breaking up homes, since the philosophy can make wives harder to get along with their husbands. Of course, feminism has created an evironment where most women work outside of the home. With the labor market flooded, wages are low and both partners feel the financial pressure to work outside the home. Feminism has helped enable more women to be family court judges with a feminist agenda, who may be more likely to give men a raw deal in court, and drive a wedge between children and their fathers. And feminist organizations push for what's 'good' for women, not what's fair. Here locally, some sort of feminist organization whose title had to do with domestic violence was putting pressure on lawmakers not to create laws to enable fair joint custody between father and mother in divorce cases.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Make no mistake: feminism is a primary agent of the destruction of the nuclear family in the West, the anti-male portrayal (especially the married anti-male portrayal), anti-male bias, etc... which is all largely rooted in the feminist movement.

If you want to choose to live in denial of this fact, you can. But it's obvious that you are to anyone who knows better.

I stand by: http://christianchat.com/christian-family-forum/79897-dangers-feminism-24.html#post1452902

And read and keep reading the comments here: Product Reviews: Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters: Amazon.com

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Just imagine, in the current culture, what's going to happen when research for a male oral contraceptive is finally successfully completed which looks possible within a decade.

It will be interesting to see if these feminists for "equal rights" will attempt to retain their current position of power over fertilization or not.

Those Christians who posit an Islamic eschatological beast model may find their model correct as birth rates in Western nations plummet leaving Muslims with a grip on the reigns of political power in the West a generation afterwards.

Will feminists like that? Not so much.